Posted by Tina
The gay marriage issue is understandably emotional for those in the gay community. It isn’t surprising that there was quite a celebration on the steps of the courthouse today when the Court ruled that the states must recognize and allow gay marriage. The problem for the dissenting justices is that this is another case where the Supreme Court acted as the voice of the people bypassing our system of government. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent:
I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.
The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.
Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an un-elected commitee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
I agree completely but I’m not at all surprised. Since Roe v Wade the left has proved time and again their disregard for the Constitution and representative government.
More on both the dissenting opinion and the majority opinion here.
“robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves – Justice Scalia
Tina, I disagree with Scalia. If this was put to a vote I think same sex marriage would win. We may not like the populace decision, but it is people governing themselves…for better or worse.
You may be right Jack, however, as Scalia pointed out there is no reference to marriage in the Constitution meaning the issue should be left to the states and the people to decide.
What’s also true is that when put to a vote of the people in the various states the people came down on the side of marriage remaining a union between one man and one woman. The gay marriage lobby has used the courts to overturn the will of the people.
Rand Paul was disappointed at the decision because he also thought it should be determined by the states. No doubt we’ve not heard the last of this and the ACA and Gay marriage decisions will be debated for years.
Nice to see Tina making blog entries again.
Re Jack “Tina, I disagree with Scalia. If this was put to a vote I think same sex marriage would win. We may not like the populace decision, but it is people governing themselves…for better or worse.”
Huh? This decision just struck down exactly that, “people governing themselves” in 14 states that ban gay marriage.
California once was once a state that banned gay marriage until Prop 8 was struck down by judicial fiat.
Pie, that would be a [State’s right argument] and that’s fair. Many of us believe this is the way it should have been handled. However, I was posing it as a purely [populace] answer to gay marriage, I wasn’t saying I agree with it, however I am saying it was a consideration in the judicial findings. Populism is another form of might makes right argument. It’s pure democracy, but its also mob rule.
My understanding of the dissenting judges opinions is it wasn’t the SC place to rule on the gay marriage and ObamaCare. Both should have been dealt with in Congress.
ObamaCare should have been returned to Congress to have the “state” language clarified and not left up to the interpretation of the SC.
And the gay marriage case should have had an Amendment created and agreed upon by Congress, and added to the Constitution to protect the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
What happened instead is five unelected black robed lawyers took the place of Congress and WROTE the laws.
Equal Rights is a federal protection. Different states should not independently decide who gets equal rights.
Employers mover people around the country.
People move around the country.
Congratulations on your promotion! I’m sorry even though your spouse was covered in your present state, your marriage will not be recognized in your new location. Please find other medical insurance for your spouse.
Thank-You
Cheap Employer CEO making 10 mil a year
“Equal Rights is a federal protection. Different states should not independently decide who gets equal rights.”
Pretty much what the SC said alright.
Re #8 Post Scripts : Agreed. But the SCOTUS majority decision on marriage and Obamacare to me is a distortion and violation of the constitution.
I do not seek to ban gay “marriage” but I do not support it either. Now the decision has been usurped in a twisted interpretation by a narrow SCOTUS majority.
The transparently duplicitous Dewey will never understand this. His aim is control of freedom according to a narrow bigoted agenda.
Should the fascist Dewey’s of this world be allowed to control? I think not.
From Doug LaMalfa’s FaceBook post. 6/27/15
“Wow. I’ve had 2 opportunities to break bread with Justice Scalia this year. He points out that it is not the Court’s (or any court) job to bail out poorly written laws NOR to fix them on the fly. It’s the job of the legislative branch, not courts or the Executive even. He pointed out to me politics and whims of the public on any given day can be addressed by legislative action, that’s what the House and Senate can do. The process of moving through all 3, House, Senate, and Presidential signatory affirmation is what the Founders intended to temper whim, fleeting desires, and raw political gain. The courts are to compare that result to Constitutional principles, whether they are spelled out in the Constituent or it is silent. Justice Scalia points out the activism of the Court by it trying to fill in that silence in the Constitution and replace the legislative debate on marriage (twice affirmed in California under Props 22 and 8) being held, or already held in the States with the personal views of 5 of 9 lawyers, not the ideals of the 10th Amendment, or of Franklin’s “it’s a Republic if you can keep it” sentiment. Ultimately, these are all symptoms of who American voters put forward to lead; all of us flawed and imperfect but checked by the balance strived for under separation of powers, the Bill of Rights and self evident truths. Even more important is the founding ideal that our form of self governance can only be sustained by a faithful people, that God’s role in our lives is the standard that, even more, above those founding documents, that strengthens us in our flawed human capacity to do what is right and selfless and pleasing to Him. Therein lies the real answer. I note that the Desk in our House chamber where the Speaker presides and the president and other world leaders address the Congress and the country, is directly under the watchful eye of the only forward facing sculpture of the many around the high wall of the House, Moses. Moses also presides at the center of the eastern roof sculpture of the U.S. Supreme Court, seated holding 2 stone tablets…you may debate whether the tablets represent the 10 Commandments as given by God to Israel and the world, or may be just the next round of EPA regs, I have my view firmly established. The Court’s decision on marriage is only one harbinger of a People who have moved even more towards self-pleasure instead of prayerfully pleasing Him. It’s up to us to seek the ancient paths or the humanistic “modern” ones.”
Tina, May 28, 2015: “In a democracy, which those pushing “one man one vote” seek, the individual is not respected.”
Tina, June 26, 2015: ” Gay Marriage Wins But Does Democracy Lose?”
Thank you for proving, once again, that you have no consistent principles to speak of.
Scalia: “The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.”
Wow. This sentence is simply amazing. Apparently, Scalia never studied Loving v. Virginia in law school.
The law absolutely cannot “recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes.” If it could, then the law could just as easily ban interracial marriage. That was pretty unpopular in its day too–more so, in fact, than gay marriage is today.
A majority of Americans did not support interracial marriage until 1997:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx
By Scalia’s logic, the Supreme Court was wrong to rule that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. Does anyone here agree with that?
Scalia also wrote the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that sodomy bans were unconstitutional. That’s right, Scalia believed (and still believes, as far as we know) that states have the right to arrest you for the type of consensual sex you have in your own bedroom. His views on the law are laughable, and he’s an embarassment to the Supreme Court and to our nation.
The Supreme Court did exactly what it was supposed to do: it struck down an unconstitutional law. The Court has this power precisely because the Founders realized that it might be necessary to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority.
If Scalia has such little respect for and understanding of his job, maybe he should quit.
Tina: “You may be right Jack, however, as Scalia pointed out there is no reference to marriage in the Constitution meaning the issue should be left to the states and the people to decide.”
There is also no reference to driving in the Constitution, meaning the issue of whether or not women should be able to drive should be left to the states and the people to decide.
“Equal protection” covers a lot of things, Tina. That phrase is mentioned in the Constitution, meaning that states cannot treat people unequally based on race or gender unless they have a damned good reason to do so. Opponents of equality were unable to produce even a plausible reason for unequal treatment; the best they could do was “marriage is for babies,” which is so outrageously false that it has literally been laughed out of several courts.
“What’s also true is that when put to a vote of the people in the various states the people came down on the side of marriage remaining a union between one man and one woman.”
Nine states passed same-sex marriage into law by either a vote of the people or the legislature prior to Obergefell v. Hodges. Undoubtedly, many more would have followed. Not that that matters, since equal protection is a constitutional right, and thus the votes of the people don’t matter.
Someone once told me that if we let the public vote on every issue, that would amount to mob rule. Oh yeah, it was you!
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2014/06/07/entitlement-mentality-exposed/
(You even called Dewey a “nimrod” for saying we lived in a democracy…you know, that thing that you’re now so afraid is being torn asunder by gay marriage.)
“The gay marriage lobby has used the courts to overturn the will of the people.”
Yes. Again, when the will of the people violates the rights of a minority, that is the courts’ entire job, as specified in the Constitution.
Chris should marry a goldfish.
Scalia’s actual dissent in Lawrence v. Texas is a bit different from the booby prize English Major’s false narrative. Nuance is lost on people who promote nuance. Funny how that works.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent, which Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Scalia objected to the Court’s decision to revisit Bowers, pointing out many decisions from lower courts that relied on Bowers that might now need to be reconsidered.[39] He noted that the same rationale used to overturn Bowers[40] could have been used to overturn Roe v. Wade, which some of the Justices in the majority in Lawrence had upheld in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Scalia also criticized the majority opinion for failing to give the same respect to stare decisis that three of those in the majority had insisted on in Casey.[41] O’Connor’s concurrence noted that Scalia’s dissent conceded that if cases such as Romer v. Evans “have stare decisis effect, Texas’ sodomy law would not pass scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, regardless of the type of rational basis review” applied.
Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable.[42]
He wrote that:
Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct…. [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.
He cited the majority opinion’s concern that the criminalization of sodomy could be the basis for discrimination against homosexuals as evidence that the majority ignored the views of most Americans:
So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.
He continued: “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.” The majority’s “invention of a brand-new ‘constitutional right'”, he wrote, showed it was “impatient of democratic change”.
Pie, exactly which part of the information you posted shows that what I said about Scalia was a “false narrative?” I said that Scalia believes that states should be allowed to outlaw sodomy. True or false?
The portion of his comments you cite hardly contradicts that–in fact, it even indicates that he thinks states can outlaw masturbation as well! That’s crazy. Why would anyone think the government could restrict such private matters? Isn’t Scalia one of those “small government” types I hear so much about but rarely actually see?
Believing that states can restrict freedom in such blatantly unconstitutional ways, and that the court should do nothing to stop them, isn’t small government. It isn’t even a rejection of judicial activism. It’s just an excuse for upholding blatantly unconstitutional laws. I don’t believe for a second that Scalia voted to uphold laws against sodomy and SSM for any other reason than that he is opposed to sodomy and SSM, and believes they should be illegal. He can try to hide behind convoluted legal reasoning, but since his legal reasoning is so embarrassingly bad, and his contempt for the majority of justices so clear, it seems obvious that he is simply using this reasoning as a smokescreen for bigotry.
Pie the courts have become political and as a result the people are the losers whether they realize it or not.
We’ve been blessed to live under the system spelled out in our Constitution and it makes me very sad to see that system dismantled and trashed, our nation set on a path of dysfunction and chaos.
Or it’s agenda is more broadly, the complete destruction of our Constitution and system of government.
Marxist/fascist principles appeal more to the group that is working so hard to bully its way through the courts.
Chris gays had the same right to marry as every other citizen…to form a union with someone of the opposite sex. There was no discrimination!
The LGBT community was proud of the alternative lifestyle they lived. Pretending they were being discriminated against is the same as pretending that an agreement between two people of the same sex is a marriage…it is not.
You have won but it is a counterfeit win.
For the record I’m appalled that this issue even made it to the courts. We are free in America to live as we choose, especially in the privacy of our own homes. That freedom does not give anyone the right to change the definition of words and foist that definition on the entire citizenry, particularly through the courts rather than the legislative branch.
Chris you have no appreciation for the constitution or our system of government. You don’t even understand basic rights. You live in the PC world of special rights gained by propaganda and bullying.
Tina, would you like to address your apparent newfound love of democracy, and your belief that this word properly describes America, after you previously said that democracy was “mob rule,” and called Dewey a “nimrod” for describing America as a democracy?
What caused this change in your opinion? Was I able to change your mind on this issue after some of our previous debates?
Tina: “Chris gays had the same right to marry as every other citizen…to form a union with someone of the opposite sex. There was no discrimination!”
As I’ve pointed out, by this logic, no one was discriminated against before Loving v. Virginia, since everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race.
You don’t understand what “equal protection” means.
“The LGBT community was proud of the alternative lifestyle they lived. Pretending they were being discriminated against is the same as pretending that an agreement between two people of the same sex is a marriage…it is not.”
Legally and socially, you are incorrect. You can keep pretending that gay marriage isn’t really marriage. People who believe that are in a shrinking minority in the United States.
The definition of marriage has changed numerous times throughout history. Many of these changes–most of them involving increased rights to women–have been to your benefit. Now that these social changes are no longer to your benefit, you are complaining about them, even though they have no negative effect on you–or anyone else in the world–whatsoever.
That is extremely selfish and uncompassionate.
“For the record I’m appalled that this issue even made it to the courts. We are free in America to live as we choose, especially in the privacy of our own homes. That freedom does not give anyone the right to change the definition of words and foist that definition on the entire citizenry, particularly through the courts rather than the legislative branch.
Chris you have no appreciation for the constitution or our system of government.”
You are describing yourself. The Founders set up the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of laws. As the Supreme Court makes clear, bans on same-sex marriage violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court did its job in this case. They protected the constitutional rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority. According to you, that’s what a republic is supposed to do, and why democracy doesn’t always work.
You are the one who doesn’t understand the role of the courts, and who routinely trashes their role as outlined in the Constitution.
Tina, I’m still waiting on an answer for this: if you don’t believe American was founded as a democracy, which you have long held and said even yesterday, why are you now concerned with “democracy” losing as a result of gay marriage winning, as it says in your title? Why did you say you “completely agreed” with Scalia when he wrote “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy?”
Do you believe in democracy, or don’t you? If you don’t, why did you pretend to for the purposes of this article?
Chris, I know you are trying to [WIN] a point with a worthy adversary (Tina), but in reality you are badgering. It looks bad and I’m being honest for your own good.
Everyone at some point interchanges democracy with republic, its not a big deal.
Yes, we know that America was founded as a republic to protect minority opinions against a potentially ruthless majority. We know that might doesn’t make right, etc. But, having said and implied even more, there is merit when a majority of the people feel government has encroached into an area it doesn’t belong. It’s so important that politicians in DC are constantly polling to see which way the wind is blowing. But, you know these things already. I’m just reminding you these two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Just a suggestion now, but don’t you think it would better to move on to a more salient point?
You’re right, Jack. Sorry.
Chris you are trying…I acknowledge that and it speaks well of your character.
And apologies to Tina as well.
A simple answer to your questions, Chris, would be that I recognize the two words are often used interchangeably, although I believe citizens should be aware of the difference and have an appreciation for the reasons behind the choice of republic at our founding.
Other than that my intention to remind all of us of the value of our heritage. The value of the three tiered system. Both are being undermines. Issues that should be decided by our representatives in Congress, through a democratic process are being decided in courts. We are losing the republic. It’s difficult to believe the SC justices are unaware, so I have to assume that they are not upholding the Constitution and the Republic but acting as political animals.
I will bow out of this discussion now per Jacks comment of restraint. I just thought you deserved an answer.
Thanks, Tina.